Microsoft ...

[Shashank Tanksali]

Ok. Granted that there are a lot of people out there who hate Microsoft.
Microsoft might have copied the Windows idea from Apple, might have copied a lot of other ideas from companies like Sun,IBM etc etc etc, but at the end of the day, they are the true winners. 90 percent of computers in the world run some Microsoft OS. All the other operating systems put together account only for 10 percent. Their office product suite is used in ten times more installations than the number of non microsoft computers in the world.
Even Microsoft's competitors need Microsoft products to run their stuff.
In my opinion, they are the true winners. After all, they make some serious money unlike Sun, Apple etc, which might have had the original Windows idea but did not know how to capitalize on it.
Heck, they even had the clout to get the judge trying their case removed.
Where am I wrong ?
-Shashank

[Thomas Paul]

Microsoft didn't copy Windows from Apple. They both stole it from Xerox.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

They are crooks. You're wrong to admire them.
The perils of one supplier have been demonstrated again and again.
If this is a friendly place why is this guy insulting our intelligence?

[Shashank Tanksali]

Thanks for the correction Thomas !!!

They are crooks. You're wrong to admire them.
The perils of one supplier have been demonstrated again and again.

I am no Microsoft fan and don't work on Microsoft products. What I meant was, there is no guarantee that either Apple,Xerox or any other company would not have done the same if they had the chance.
Xerox came up with the Windows idea, but did not know how to make use of it for their own commercial gain. Microsoft got that idea from Xerox (they would never admit it though) and identified that there was a huge gain to be made from developing graphics oriented operating systems.
They knew an opportunity when they saw one. Isn't business all about spotting opportunities and making the most of it ???
-Shashank

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:
They are crooks. You're wrong to admire them.
The perils of one supplier have been demonstrated again and again.
If this is a friendly place why is this guy insulting our intelligence?

Just look at the s/w they have developed...OS, database, B2B (BizTalk), webserver, app server, office apps, games...the list is endless. No SINGLE company has such a breadth of products.
The beauty of their products is, once you are hooked you are hooked for ever. A person (I am not talking about smart ass Unix guys) might crib about Windows day and night but he'll never go type in vi. Have you ever worked with Excel? Just see the features and things that you can do with it. It is amazing.
There is no doubt that MS is a smart firm with really genious people.
If people are so angry with MS, why don't they develop an OS that's better than Windows (including user experience and ease of use) and is cheaper?
Now, if I say that MS is smart that does not mean all others are fools. People who created Java are also smart and that's why Java is successfull. Java made a mark in spite of the presence of VB,VC, etc. So it proves that a good product/idea cannot be stopped by the likes of MS. Linux is making a mark in the server side in spite of Solaris, HPUX etc. But if you expect Linux to replace Windows, forget it. It's just not there yet.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

If people are so angry with MS, why don't they develop an OS that's better than Windows (including user experience and ease of use) and is cheaper?

Very shallow comment.

[Jason Menard]

Actually we should all be thanking Microsoft. If it were not for Windows, PC's may very well still be the primary domain of hobbyists, not the common home appliances they are today.
Having one standard OS is not a bad thing. Ideally there would be different flavors of this OS where software would work on each one, but that isn't reality. Linux is still a LONG ways off from fulfilling this ideal. Having one standard OS (which Windows is whether or not we want to admit it) simplifies things greatly for the consumer as well as the software producers. I would also say that it allows them to bring more software to market. Remember the days when the Commodore 64/128, Amiga, Atari ST, IBM, and Mac were all on the market at the same time? There wasn't all that much software available was there?
In addition, I think it would be unfair to not recognize MS Office for the excellent software that it is. Anybody remember document sharing prior to MS Word? It was a nightmare. Because of its wide spread use, Word format is the de facto document standard today. How is this a bad thing? Yes it would be nice if everybody could agree on a common open document standard, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for some time.
Without MS and their products, consumers would not have it so good today.

[Michael Ernest]

I think that's probably the key point for me: Windows is great for end-users, and by extension for developers of end-users products. Even Windows stuff is a good deal more powerful than people need or want, and reasonably useful for small business applications.
The "genius" of most Microsoft applications lies in the fact that Microsoft developed almost none of them -- they acquired those tools and wrapped them into their platform.
I would guess well less than 10% of the world's computer users need to write software or run sophisticated applications. And only a fraction of the world's users can't afford frequent reboots, gaping security holes, or stunted support for things like a multiuser tasking, CPU scaling, remote terminal access, command-line capability, etc. For people like that, not to mention people who simply want to be able to play with the internals of their systems to learn, Windows shows not so much in the way of genius.
But for those of you who find Windows to be the living end, here's a counter-proposition: explain Linux; that is, explain what need Linux fills if Windows does everything a person could want.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

I'll bite.
Linux serves the need to be anti-Microsft/Windows. That's about it. Linux is nowhere close to providing the interface and ease of use the Windows provides. There are about 100 linux distro's right now. Why? Because anti-MS companies and individuals have nothing better to do than take the same Kernel and call it something else packaged with hundreds of useless applications.
With that being said, I have a SUSE box running. I use it as a FileServer and a gateway for my cable modem. There is not even a GUI installed. the OS takes up about 200 MB vs any typical Windows install taking 1 to 2 GB. especially Advanced Server.
Now UNIX on the other hand, I feel, is a more stable Server OS than Windows (not to mention secure). However, Windows and those Wizards sure help the common folk set up their network a lot easier.
Just my opinions though.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
...explain what need Linux fills...

Linux fills a couple of needs. If we set the way-back machine to the early-to-mid 1980's, the only people who really had PCs were hobbyists/technical people. These were people who were intrigued by the gadget and generally learned quite a bit more about their machine than people do today. Just about everyone learned at least a tiny bit about programming their machines. Computer magazines back then just about all included programs you could type in. Windows has pretty much made this type of user a dinosaur. There are still these people who love to tinker with their machines and write their own software however, and Linux (as well as other alternative operating systems)suits these people nicely.
Another major need that Linux fills is academic. With Linux, universities get an operating system that perfectly satisfies the demands of scientific computing, and running a large campus network. Additionally, Linux fits several needs of a school's CS department. It offers an OS with all the tools needed to write, compile, and run, software in almost any language. It also offers an OS whose insides can be studied and modified without a NDA. With Linux, students can also afford to install the same OS on their home machines as the one being used on campus, eliminating the need to spend every waking hour in the labs.
Linux also fills a need for small-to-medium sized businesses who require a stable network environment, yet are also bound by fiscal considerations. These businesses can now run servers and a network environment much more affordably than with UNIX or Windows, and definitely more stable than Windows.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Robert Paris]

I agree that M$ is the big winner here, HOWEVER they are the perfect example of what's the WORST thing for "consumers" from software. They won, NOT because they had the best product, but because they had the best marketing and placement. Think how much better off we'd be if the software used was always chosen because it did the job the best!
We need to remove M$'s ability to use its marketing power to continue to drive things in a direction that benefits them and almost no one else. Now the biggest mistake everyone makes is in calling M$ evil and saying they're at fault. Because frankly, as great as Java is, I'd be willing to bet if everyone running Sun were in M$'s exact position, they wouldn't have done anything differently. The point is, we do not need to PUNISH M$, but to put into place safety catches for users/consumers such that no company can do what M$ has done, nor become a monopoly like they have. Isn't that what the government's there for? To protect the interests of the majority? When did that get forgotten? Oh, right when it was bought.

[Anonymous]

Undeserving of libertarian praise : By Duncan Bayne

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Robert Paris:
I agree that M$ is the big winner here, HOWEVER they are the perfect example of what's the WORST thing for "consumers" from software. They won, NOT because they had the best product, but because they had the best marketing and placement. Think how much better off we'd be if the software used was always chosen because it did the job the best!

I disagree. Name a product which is better than Word or Excel (Lotus??? hahaha!). Name a product which is better for average user than Windows (Linux??? very funny).
For a small business there's nothing better than Linux file sharing and/or server box. Windows server products are just too expensive. But what small business (besides tech companies and one that happened to employ software entusiasts) would want to deal with Linux? Try asking your spouse to install it... :roll:
Granted though, MS has great marketing.
Shura

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I disagree. Name a product which is better than Word or Excel (Lotus??? hahaha!). Name a product which is better for average user than Windows (Linux??? very funny).

You're missing the point.
Netscape Navigator was better than IE.
J2EE was better than .Net.
But the big bully on the block does not want any competition. Fifty billion is not enough for Bill Gates, he's got a severe case of infectious greed.

[SJ Adnams]

I'd go with this comment:
<quote>If people are so angry with MS, why don't they develop an OS that's better than Windows (including user experience and ease of use) and is cheaper? </quote>
Despite microsoft having a 90% market share, the OS is a commodity item, Sun doesn't make it's money from selling Solaris for $100.
I have no idea what the true value of an OS is - in terms of man-months/units sold. But I can tell you that I couldn't go to a bank and ask for $$$ to develop 'a new revolutionary OS'.

[Robert Paris]

Simon,
uh, can we say Lindows, Mac OS X, Ximian?
But the fact remains that people will not switch. Oh, granted a few will, most of them being tech people, but the vast majority are afraid to switch, and probably don't believe that there is a real alternative. Remember also, this is not just in software. Beta was a better format than VHS, but which won out? And remember when mini-discs came out? That was actually 10 years ago!! Now you'll see some mini-discs, but still things are moving to MP3 players (which at this point are probably better than mini-discs, but CDs were NOT)

[Michael Ernest]

If people are so angry with MS, why don't they develop an OS that's better than Windows (including user experience and ease of use) and is cheaper?
Such tools already exist. But not everyone defines "ease of use" as brain-free convenience.
Despite microsoft having a 90% market share, the OS is a commodity item
Are you alleging that Windows is only an operating system? Are you related to Jim Allchin by chance?

Sun doesn't make it's money from selling Solaris for $100.
True enough! I'm still running Solaris 2.5.1 on one of my systems. It's just so solid, and still supported, that I can't bear to change. Anyone out there still running DOS 6.12? Came out about the same time...

I have no idea what the true value of an OS is - in terms of man-months/units sold. But I can tell you that I couldn't go to a bank and ask for $$$ to develop 'a new revolutionary OS'.

Not everyone in OS development focusses on the end-user, for reasons you've already stated. It's a commodity game, the biggest player out there is aggressively anti-competitive, and, frankly, your average consumer contributes squat to technological advances. Most of them just want free email. O boy, how do I get me some of that gravy?
But if you're interested, people develop new OS'es all the time. BeOS, Plan 9, ChorusOS, PalmOS...
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Tracy Woo]

When MS wstarted, the field was clear, there was no competition....they got an opportunity (in the form of contract with IBM) and seized it and then never looked back. Microsoft did not start at the level it is today. It started from ZERO. And they built their empire from that, which I believe is fair enough. It's not like MS grew this powerfull overnight. In it early years, I don't think it was any powerfull at all. Everybody had an equal chance. But they succeeded and then kept on building on their success.
Nobody forced anybody to use DOS then...and nobody is forcing anybody to user Windows now.

Such tools already exist. But not everyone defines "ease of use" as brain-free convenience.

So what? That's their business model. If their product does not require brains to use, that does mean the makers/developers of the product are stupid. I would say, they are much smarter than the rest. Computers and software are just tools. In this world of cut throat competition, nobody wants to spend years in just learning the tools(read unix, vi). They understood this requirement better than others and so they are successful. I agree that not *everyone* wants this kind of ease of use...but hey...for them there is unix

[Robert Paris]

I would say, they [Microsoft] are much smarter than the rest.

I don't disagree with you Tracy. However, to me and many others, the point of software should be to help make our lives/what we do, easier, more accurate and better. From the M$ (and most other companies)'s point of view, the point is to make software that earns you a ton of money. Therein lies the problem. Now of course, there needs to be a balance, obviously given that we're in a (mostly) capitalist-based economic system, the companies need to make money themselves for the employess and the company to survive. However, that is where the government should come in - to create a balance. The balance being between company interest and consumer/general-public interest.
We should be able to get the best products available at the best prices possible while still ensuring that the company selling that product can survive and even thrive. Right now, we cannot choose the best products. If everyone uses PowerPoint for presentations, I MUST be able to read those powerpoint presentations. This is not a problem, EXCEPT when a company (as M$ did) uses their monopoly on a certain market (OS/Office) to keep others from making compatible, or comparable products. If no other company makes a compatible product, or can make as good a product, than by all means let them have a monopoly in that matrket, as long as they do not try to keep others from entering the market and competing against them in the future.

[Shashank Tanksali]

This is not a problem, EXCEPT when a company (as M$ did) uses their monopoly on a certain market (OS/Office) to keep others from making compatible, or comparable products. If no other company makes a compatible product, or can make as good a product, than by all means let them have a monopoly in that matrket, as long as they do not try to keep others from entering the market and competing against them in the future.

Microsoft MAY have tried to retain it's OS monopoly, but it is not trying to prevent anybody from entering the office software space. In fact StarOffice tried to bring out an alternative to MS Office, but failed miserably.
To most small companies, the task of developing an alternative to MS office and starting from scratch is daunting.
But that is not Microsoft's fault. So why blame MS ???
However bigger players like IBM can always develop an alternative to MS office, but they have chosen not to do so. Again, MS had nothing to do with the fact that IBM,Apple etc do not want to be in that software space. So why blame em ?
-Shashank

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
When MS wstarted, the field was clear, there was no competition....they got an opportunity (in the form of contract with IBM) and seized it and then never looked back. Microsoft did not start at the level it is today. It started from ZERO.

You're just making this up. I don't even know where I would start picking apart such an uninformed set of assertions.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I worked on CP/M, it was better than MS-DOS. It could be shipped on an early model IBM PC.
Am I wrong or did M$ threaten hardware manufactures shipping non-Windows OS's.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus Bugleweed ]

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

You're just making this up. I don't even know where I would start picking apart such an uninformed set of assertions.

Yeah right, MS started as a billion dollar company right from day one.
Regarding comptt., if there was good compt. with better products than what MS had (ie. DOS), then blaming MS for being successful is baseless because at that time MS did not have any clout to to threaten hardware manufactures (which was basically IBM). And so hardware vendors could have chosen any OS to go with their PCs.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:
I worked on CP/M, it was better than MS-DOS. It could be shipped on an early model IBM PC.

But I don't understand how is it MS's fault that IBM selected DOS over CP/M???

Am I wrong or did M$ threaten hardware manufactures shipping non-Windows OS's.

You are talking about a period when Windows was already established. And what's wrong with that if they did. I don't want to sell my product to a company that is also trying to deal with my competitor. Why is this wrong? It's my product, I have the right to decide whom I want to sell and whom I don't want to.
I don't know but I don't think they could have threatened the hardware vendors during the DOS period. Why didn't any vendor supply pcs with other OS and succeed?
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Tracy Woo ]

[Vikrama Sanjeeva]

Hi guyz,
I am not going to put much in this topic but have some feeling about MS as other ranchers .So want to share couple of words..
What i heard about MS from one of the PhD in CS that MS is so much popular b/c in the early dayz of computer there was only IBM make computers namely Personal Computers or simply PC.And IBM has captured the market via its PC's.What actually was happened..IBM president(i forget the right designation but one of the key post) was the Grandfather of Bill Gates, he ask Bill Gates to write IBM PC compatible software.So as already the market was captured by IBM PC's, pplz get started to purchase MS products in order to run on there PC's.By this way...MS get popular among common pplz.
I dont how much true this story.I've just listen it from CS dr.
Bye,
Viki.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Rufus Bugleweed:

Am I wrong or did M$ threaten hardware manufactures shipping non-Windows OS's.

Threats are rather obvious, in the world of business. It went like this: if you wanted to sell computers on a large-scale to consumers, you needed an operating system to go with it. Microsoft had large market share, so you'd be silly not to provide it to your customers. Microsoft says, "we'll sell you a distribution license -- one for every PC you make." You say, "I only want to buy licenses for the copies I actually re-sell." Microsoft responds, "You will also retain several of our employees, and you will pay them to count every PC you ship."
And that's it. In order to compete on price, every manufacturer that wants to survive loads Windows n every machine, since they have to pay for it no matter what. They stop offering competitor's OSes, because Microsoft has made it clear they'll raise prices on you if you do. In fact, they'll keep raising prices until you choke or you find some other way to cut costs.
Then, when a manufacturer comes on the market and figures a way around your scheme, you dump. You flood the market with your product at little or no cost long enough to undercut that mfr, and they're baked.
The loser in that game is the consumer, not because they necessarily get an inferior product but because the competitive choices are reduced to zero by being blocked from the marketplace. The consumer isn't aware of this lack of choice because they never get to see it. Hobbyists and technicians who follow developments in the industry know about it, but the consumer market doesn't exactly pay close attention to hobbyists and technicians.
Some other time we'll get into the relationship between Intel and Windows that made all this possible to begin with. Speaking as someone who spent a fair amount of time working on NCR/Unix systems running on Intel, and knowing the reason we paid $1000 more to run NCR SVR3/4 MP-RAS on the same hardware was M$'s strangehold on licensing, it wasn't a mystery.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

You are talking about a period when Windows was already established. And what's wrong with that if they did.

Microsoft uses it's dominant position to run it's competitors out of business. This is against the law in the United States of America. It's called anti-trust.
We're a society. We know that survival of the fittest only leads to anarchy. My dad can beat up your dad only ends up with whole bunch of corpses.

[Michael Ernest]

Microsoft MAY have tried to retain it's OS monopoly, but it is not trying to prevent anybody from entering the office software space.

When you declare that all the tools that run on top of your operating system are in fact essential parts of the operating system, that's exactly what you are doing. A little-known fact: in Microsoft's earliest amicus briefs during their anti-trust trial, they claimed M$ Office among other things were integral parts of the OS. That is, they wanted the court to assert that office software was OS software.
The potential benefit: you could give away M$ Office for free whenever it suited you. When would you do that? Gee, maybe when a competitor comes on the market?

In fact StarOffice tried to bring out an alternative to MS Office, but failed miserably.

StarOffice has a very large installed base, an active development team, and a book that is selling very, very well. Just because Microsoft says it failed doesn't mean it's true. Pick up a paper once in a while.

To most small companies, the task of developing an alternative to MS office and starting from scratch is daunting. But that is not Microsoft's fault. So why blame MS ???

Because they make it extremely difficult for other companies to write office software for Windows, and they do it intentionally to frustrate potential competition. Microsoft's very candid position on the matter is that there's no need for office software from anywhere else, because life-giving M$ Office solves all your worries.

However bigger players like IBM can always develop an alternative to MS office, but they have chosen not to do so.

In case this is news: IBM doesn't develop end-user software for a living. They make their money on hardware, just like Sun and HP.

Again, MS had nothing to do with the fact that IBM, Apple etc do not want to be in that software space. So why blame em ?

You're just asserting whatever comes to mind, I think.

[LadyMahler]

Just my 2 cents on Linux getting there fast & taking over the world:
I just installed a SuSE box (the new 8 release) and the installation procedure is officially easier than Windows. Go try it for yourself. It's pie.
The interface is, in fact, as user-friendly as Windows.
The cost is a laugh, and I'm not only referring to licensing. The box I'm using is a slammed together upgraded PC that performs better than a state-of-the-art server we run @ work on 2000, that cost them 6 times more.
Microsoft is in deep brown with their new licensing policy and the phones aren't stopping at our local Linux business partner. (The same goes for other vendor products, I've heard even Lotus SmartSuite is making a bit of a come-back because it's so much cheaper than Office).
Maybe Microsoft got some things right but a monopoly can never last forever. If there's money to be made from something, you bet someone will start competing with a better prize and product at some stage (ESPECIALLY if the monopoly's product and prize is, well, frankly, damn lousy at times).
So I dare you that are still running your PC's and webservers on MS to just take the plunge and try out the alternative. And keep us posted.
[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Adi du Toit ]

[SJ Adnams]

Robert,
People will switch. But the OS they switch too much be a whole lot better than M$ to bring them across.
I agree that the marketing is a probably better than coca-cola. But users are a little more savvy than the 'few tech-heads'. A truly believe a better OS would be able to take 50% of the market within 5 years.

[Shura Balaganov]

Robert Paris: we're in a (mostly) capitalist-based economic system, the companies need to make money themselves for the employess and the company to survive. However, that is where the government should come in - to create a balance.
Robert, I think you are confusing capitalism and socialism
Shashank Tanksali: However bigger players like IBM can always develop an alternative to MS office, but they have chosen not to do so.
Remember Lotus? it was first on the market with a spreadsheet, before Excel. When M$ started taking it to the cleaners, IBM bought Lotus in order to get the market back. IBM still owns Lotus and still produces it Suite, but it never really came back. Or someone paranoid enough might say, that IBM helped M$ to clear the market?... :roll:
In fact, that's an interesting thought (hello, paranoya!)...If IBM and M$ are in cahoots, then here's your reason why IBM is "supporting" Linux... :roll:
Somehow people don't argue about the fact that their local cable company is the monopolist. As usually their local phone company, and often - electric company. Granted, they are a lot more government regulated, but they also existed a lot longer than the whole PC/OS market. My guess is it will mature eventually, but M$ will not go anywhere, just like Baby Bells...
Rufus, please explain to me how capitalistic economy can NOT use survival of the fittest principle.
Michael Ernest: IBM doesn't develop end-user software for a living. They make their money on hardware
I partially disagree. Before market crash, IBM's most profitable division was its consulting group. And what about WebSphere, VisualAge for Java and DB2?
M$ might be having problems selling outside US though... besides the fact that any foreign government/military would want an OpenSource OS (for obvious reasons), a lot of them also can't (or don't want to) afford it
For people in US to switch from Windows, it should be a profoundly better OS, not just "a nicer interface" or "a little more stable"...Slamming together another "cooler" windows interface will not cut it
Shura

[Jason Menard]

So I dare you that are still running your PC's and webservers on MS to just take the plunge and try out the alternative. And keep us posted.
Been there... done that. Multiple times actually. Installation, particularly setting up a multi-boot machine, only goes smoothe if you aren't trying to do something a bit out of the ordinary, or if your machine is fairly vanilla. And I should add I've been a hardcore UNIX user in the workplace since 1994, so I don't consider myself a novice. I always got the systems set-up but much pain was involved. But I've used it when I've had a need to.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't turn on my computer to use an OS, I turn it on to use some kind of application software. Isn't that the point of a computer to begin with? If you want to tinker with an OS or run a server, then Linux is right up your alley, just don't expect those of us who actually just want to run applications that we like to see any compelling reason to dump Windows.
If the software we like is on another OS that is suitable for the masses, people may switch, until then, it's not going to happen, at least not in the home.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

Michael Ernest: IBM doesn't develop end-user software for a living. They make their money on hardware
I partially disagree. Before market crash, IBM's most profitable division was its consulting group. And what about WebSphere, VisualAge for Java and DB2?

Take away consulting, and IBM goes through a lot of steep layoffs. Take away its hardware business, and I bet they can't survive. I suppose I should have said "IBM survives on hardware" to be clearer.
WebSphere, VA Java, DB2 -- not hardware, of course, but not quite consumer tools, either. Does anyone use DB2 outside of an AIX platform?

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

In case this is news: IBM doesn't develop end-user software for a living. They make their money on hardware, just like Sun and HP.

They made OS2/Warp and failed miserably. It might have been a better OS than windows ...but finally it failed. And remember, IBM does have the same (if not more) clout and money power as that of MS.
It is extremely difficult (in not immpossible) for a startup to develop a killer OS and succeed. Only big companies like IBM (who make their money on something else and are thus able to invest heavily and still survive) have the potential to develop a killer OS. And I do not believe that MS can stop if such companies do develop a killer OS.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

WebSphere, VA Java, DB2 -- not hardware, of course, but not quite consumer tools, either. Does anyone use DB2 outside of an AIX platform?

WebShereAS, VAJ, ViaVoice etc. are not consumer tools??? Give me a break. VAJ and ViaVoice are probably used more on windows than any other platform.

[Robert Paris]

Robert, I think you are confusing capitalism and socialism

Shura: No, you just misunderstood me. I was saying we're in a mostly capitalist society, and THAT needs balancing. So we need the government to balance that, with a more socialist/democratic angle. The government looking out for the interests of the majority of citizens, and therefore consumers, is NOT capitalist, nor was I saying it is.
We need more government, not less. BUT before we do that, we need to outlaw lobbying (with money, gifts, etc) and campaign contributions. In other words, remove money from the equation.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

WebShereAS, VAJ, ViaVoice etc. are not consumer tools??? Give me a break. VAJ and ViaVoice are probably used more on windows than any other platform.

That doesn't make them consumer tools, dear. The average user doesn't run an application server or write Java through an IDE.
It seems silly to assert that the dominant OS in the world is the one most people are probably using, although I'm sure there's a new Microsoft marketing slogan in there somewhere: "Not only do we dominate the market, people actually use our products!"

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Robert Paris:
We need more government, not less.

:roll:

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

That doesn't make them consumer tools, dear. The average user doesn't run an application server or write Java through an IDE.

So what are consumer tools? Different consumers need different tools. There is not just one set of tools that can be called consumer tools. For some, Excel, LotusNotes, Word, WordPerfect are consumer tools. For some, IDEs, Compilers etc. are consumer tools. For some, only a Browser is a consumer tool.
You seem to catagorize tools as consumer tools that suit your purpose. However, the point is, IBM is well into developing s/w. It has the potential to develop and market an OS and MS cannot stop IBM from doing that.

It seems silly to assert that the dominant OS in the world is the one most people are probably using, although I'm sure there's a new Microsoft marketing slogan in there somewhere: "Not only do we dominate the market, people actually use our products!"

I am not sure which OS would you call as the dominant OS if not the one that is most widely used. However, what has this got to do with the current discussion???
[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tracy Woo ]

[Shura Balaganov]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

It is extremely difficult (in not immpossible) for a startup to develop a killer OS and succeed. Only big companies like IBM (who make their money on something else and are thus able to invest heavily and still survive) have the potential to develop a killer OS. And I do not believe that MS can stop if such companies do develop a killer OS.

But big companies are usually too politicized and not innovative enough to develop a killer OS. What I would do, is what partially Linux did. You write a base OS, then form a start-up around it (or sell it to them). After burning through some VC cash, you approach one of the giants for take-over. Linux and IBM is not the best marriage, since IBM makes other OSs (OS2, Mainframe). You need to pick company that doesn't have its own OS, has enough cash, and which is hungry for new market. Maybe Sun or Cisco will be interested? How about US Government, or DOD?
Shura